ONENESS ONENESS

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:32:50 -0800, you wrote:

>I agree, I've come in here as a "man with an attitude"! I confess I had a
>"sectarian" attitude! Hopefully I've apologized enough, but in case I
>haven't- I apologize for that also! :-)

We won't solve all the appearant problems of the church, but we can
all love the truth and live like Chrisitans! You're demonstrating that
that with a passion, friend!

>2Co 12:9 "...Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities,
>that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in
>infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses
>for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."

>That may be a "little" out of context, but I think you get the drift!!!
>(I.e. Paul was talking about being weak in the flesh, not that he was being
>wrong.)

If any of us are anything, that was because of Him and can cease to be
the *moment* His Spirit is withdrawn. Our weaknesses can be measured
and testified to, and therein we know the need of God to help us. Now,
we can't say the same about our personal strengths, which in fact can
drive God away when put forth in pride..  Hence, Im with Paul!

>Now, can we talk about the other issue I've brought to the table here?

Lets do it!

>I have to admit, in case it's not obvious, that this word is like a fire in
>my soul. And, I probably don't have to tell you, being as you're a pastor,
>that the best way to deal with a fire is to throw water on it, right?
>Because if it's of man it's best to get it put out, and if it's from God,
>water will only prove it! So, I'm asking you to throw all the water on it
>you can, okay?

No way :)

>Let me ask you a question. (Not that that I think a "ministerial alliance"
>is wrong- I DON'T.) But consider this-
>
>If it is  good, worthy, and noble (which it is) to unite "part" of the body
>of Christ under a "ministerial alliance", but of which type of alliance
>there isn't exactly precise scriptural precedence- Then  how could it be
>less than good, worthy, and noble to labour to unite the ENTIRE body of the
>Oneness Acts 2:38 church according to the one and only truly complete
>scriptural model?

I think that in fact, God's church IS One church. We have limited
specific examples of how organizational relationships evolved and
interacted to "flesh out" the church of the first generation. But, we
do have SOME examples. As I read it there were some contentions, and
while they were reproved from time to time, there was ONE church. I
personally do not hold to the Historical theory that the church
gradually grew apostate starting in the late 3rd Century. I believe
there have ALWAYS, from the beginning, been several different bodies,
but only ONE of them is the mystical body of Christ . Even so, there
are different admnistrations in that body. 

Brother Tom, I know -very- few people in the UPC indeed, who would say
that people who have the Acts 3:38 experience and yet are not in
churches where the pastor has a UPC (or PAW) fellowship card, are not
in the church. One cannot (and we DO not) rule people out of the body
because of organizational identification.

In fact, there are people who I must have limited fellowship with
BECAUSE of our common bond (i.e. they have recommendation of
brethren), but with whom who I do not share a common attitude toward
the scriptures, and cannt sense much fellowship. At the same time,
others who are perhaps not yet as knowledgable DO have a spirit which
engenders fellowship in God, though they are not in "the fellowship".

There are people with recommendation, who dont deserve it, and also
people who have lost out in fellowship because of various (sad)
reasons, who DO believe and preach in such manner that they WOULD have
fellowship cards in an ideal world..

So, you ask, "what good is it ?".. 

We ought not confuse or despise EITHER fellowship. What we WANT is
both. The fellowship of the spirit is most desirable. But it is
-because- of the fellowship of the Spirit and Word that we can advance
to organizational fellowship, and actually get along together and DO
things together which we could not do alone. Now, in the REAL world,
there are people who want to be leaders, AND THEN there are those who
God promotes. 

Accusations have and may be made stating that organizations ALWAYS get
this backward. (I don't believe this.) However I could as easily say
that the REAL proof of the appointment of leadership is when men and
women (of like precious faith, or who are presumed to have fellowship
in the Spirit and word ) WILL dwell under subjection to that
leadership. As the Bible says " A man's  gift  maketh  room  for him,
and bringeth him before great men." - Prov 18:16

Understand the implications:

1. One can be a member of the church and for various reasons not have
organizational fellowship with some others. This is OK in God's eyes,
though He designed and uses organization..

2. Within organization, the power of God is at work in governments.

3. At some unspecified point, one's ministry if not one's salvation IS
dependant upon God finding us subject unto one another, and to His
word.

---- The final implication of this is that God is liberal regarding
salvation, and conservative regarding His program for evangelism, and
Christian life. That is, he sees and allows more than he likes, but
refuses to be influenced by the strength of men and women.

One cannot explicitly state that two people, though not ORGANIZED
under one Bishop (other than Jesus Christ) are not in unity.

>I don't think you'll disagree that the scriptures DO teach we SHOULD be
>WORKING TOWARD unity, right?...

One would have to qualify that, asking what the local definition of
UNITY was. For some its just this: Do what I say, and dont correct me.
This obviously doesnt go far.


>Eph 4:13 TILL WE ALL COME IN THE UNITY of the faith, and of the knowledge of
>the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
>fulness of Christ:

Yes, you have a very fine set of scriptures selected to demonstrate
the desire of God for us to be ONE.

>The thing is, when we have disagreements over small issues, like I have
>demonstrated, we CAN'T have full one mind and accord unity, can we?

Yes, we can. You made the point here "small issues". We can have
disagreements and so long as we do not faction ourselves to the
destruction of unity (i.e. being contemtuous of the considerable value
of others and their gifts which God HAS made room for). We will still
have the REAL unity of the Spirit and as you said, even now, we are
working and living toward being what we ought to be in Jesus Christ
together.

>I mean, even now- can you honestly say that you can see how my position has
>helped turn you back around from going to far overboard in one direction?
>The position that you have stated to me has only made me to realize that we
>definitely DO have differences, but that doesn't mean we aren't brothers in
>God! Right?

Thats right. I would LIKE to say there isnt much we can do to negate
that, but I would be lying..

There is much that people can do to embitter and finally destroy the
faith and spirit of other Christians.

>So what tool do we currently have in place between us to bring total, pure
>and true ONE MIND AND ACCORD unity if you're saying you see one thing in the
>scriptures, and I'm saying I see another? I mean, from what I can see the
>Bible doesn't teach us that unity means being able to accept and compromise
>to each others differences of interpretations, it teaches that we should be
>TOTALLY OF THE SAME MIND, right?

Yes, but that is something which God accomplishes first locally, then
universally, in a sovereign act of the Spirit. While we are commanded
to BE of the same mind, implying responsibility, there is not at any
one time anything any one individual can to do resolve all the
conflicts of leadership. Even in 1 Cor, God's method was to speak to a
local body, and primarilly its leadership, and through the power of
preaching, allow them to see the danger of their factioning, and to
"come clean". 

Now, notice PAUL was ALSO a powerful preacher of doctrine,
particularly of holiness.  While he did not address this as relating
to the factions of the Corinthian church, it is clear that if Cephas
or Apollos was teaching something in this regard contrary to Paul..
Paul was using his considerable authority to straighten it out.. The
one teaching "even on small issues" contrary, was the looser here.
>Brother, you and I aren't quite perfectly joined in the same mind, are we?
>According to this scripture, then, are we not yet carnal? Are you then,
>willing to compromise your position on jewelry, etc for the sake of unity,
>so that we can be perfectly joined in one mind? Are you going to instead
>turn on me, whom God has cleansed, and call me common or unclean?

Oh dear, Tom...

You see, what you want everyone to do is to abandon their teaching for
some reason. Let me put this question to you ... what dont YOU put
your teaching away for the sake of unity ... ?

My my my... it doent work both ways does it ? :) 

 See, you are the one who defines the body as being schismed if there
are any disagreements. In fact, in my opinion, you are IN the body,
but in disagreement about some things that you have called "minor". 

My pronoucement or yours will not change where you or I stand with
God. We must seek God and be united in TRUTH! The Corinthian church
had a visit from Apostle Paul to set in order things that were
threatening to take some souls OUT of the church. If there is going to
be a change it is going to be because of ministry.

Perhaps there is a PARTICULAR ministry which will right the issues in
question, but I do not think it is going to be a demand that we all
abandon scriptural teaching.

However, fellowship CAN and IS limited to the extent to which people
CAN and WILL get along.

>I don't see how you could compromise your position! You see them to plainly
>in the scriptures! Nor would I even want to attempt, any more, at trying to
>get you to! If you raise them up as an issue against me, then you'll just
>appear to me as I did to you, right? But I feel exactly the same about the
>position I hold! So now what do we do? Divide? Compromise?
>
>No, we MUST endeavour to keep the UNITY!

Lets do it!

>Because I need you, and you need me, and we also need what EVERY JOINT
>supplieth!

yep!

>But none of us on our own can see how to bring us back together!

I can.

>First our early pioneers each tried supporting the whole church by
>themselves, as if they were the whole foundations- and they were crushed,
>every one, every time.

>Are we so much better off now, having the building splintered off into
>carnal factions? 

Yes, not perfect but better off, and led of God.

>All I'm saying is, I believe we all need to "pool" our collective "pillars"
>together before God, and present them to God, that God may "cement" the
>building, our body, back together, so that once again, we can ALL edify each
>other in love. Not just through what we are getting from those setting atop
>our own respective pillars, but what we're missing from the other parts of
>the body that we've separated from, or been separated from, for one silly
>factious reason or another! And not through compromise either, but through
>true direction.

Lets do it!

>I'm not trying to make myself a champion here, rather entirely the opposite.

The issue could use a champion. If its your burden, pray for one.

>I see the message I'm brining out the other way around from yourself. If you
>aren't willing to "pool" your tangent before God, aren't you being self
>serving? Are you afraid that God won't "choose" leaders that will support
>your tangent? Are you afraid to sacrifice your "ministerial alliance" for
>the sake of the unity of the ENTIRE BODY of Christ?

If you are saying, "Are we afraid to give up some fellowship in order
to obey God? " the answer is that this is commonly discussed and the
answer is generally, NO WAY. It was TF Tenney who could be quoted to
say what many others have, which was "if need be, the organization can
die, to give birth to a movement".

However, we are not fools, and do realize that God has build, has
blessed and is using the organization. We are not quick to lift a heel
or a axe against good men, and the blessing of spiritual fellowship.
You could as easily take a new look at scripture tommorrow. Being a
small minority, I would think it would appear incumbent.  However,
there is talk of and perhaps sentiment that witnesses in the Holy
Ghost that some may be required to separate for reasons of conscience.

I will tell you this: If there are major splits we wont be TOO happy
about it, but we will survive and prosper and DO the will of God. And,
no prophet, but the devil will have designed the instrument brought in
to divide brethren.

>I'm offering and determining to bring myself under submission to the exact
>same Apostles, that I'm asking you to- those that God draws out from among
>us. 

The Apostles believed in and practiced church government, probably a
great deal stricter than we do. Do you ?

>Those whom we all, collectively, presume to be the best we have to
>offer, and have God set them over us, ultimately NOT by any means of our own
>presumptuousness, to keep us together, to allow us to see where, when, and
>how to bring our tangents back around toward each other- that we may be
>fitly joined back together again.

Finally, we have the witness and leadership of the 12 Apostles of the
Lamb. I do not believe in placing people on the same level as the
eyewitnesses, so, if I read you right, I would have to say no. We
intend to keep the unity of THEIR faith, contending for the same.

>I'm saying here that if we do this, I'll bring myself under submission to
>whomever it is that God chooses to set over us, and to set us back to one
>mind and accord by! 

How will YOU recognize who that is ? With a different critera than the
majority of the body ?

>Have you ever been in construction? I used to be a carpenter. A carpenter is
>always working himself out of a job. That's what I see my position here as-
>working to get the foundation built, and thereby working myself out of a
>job. Not to be "self-serving" but serving the church, and then letting
>somebody else of a higher calling take over, that we may get on with the
>task of the church- bringing God glory, and saving souls! We do lose some
>souls, and cast stumblingblocks, because we aren't all in perfect unity, you
>know.

10  According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise
masterbuilder, I have laid the  foundation , and another buildeth
thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.  11
For  other   foundation  can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.  12  Now if any man build upon this  foundation  gold,
silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;  13  Every man's work
shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall
be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what
sort it is. 

The wise master builder works at the foundation, but he does not
labour on the foundations that ANOTHER has already built.


>ow, let me ask you some questions...
>
>Doesn't saying we don't need God ordained Apostles today sound exactly like
>"just believers" who say we don't need the Holy Ghost today? "That was for
>yesterday, and that's passed" they say! What, may I ask, in terms of
>positive authority and direction, did the apostles provide yesterday that we
>DON'T NEED today?

 answered this in an earlier post as well as I am able. It seems
important to your argument to anticipate a great personality coming to
do what you see needing to be done. May I submit to you that there are
MANY great personalities doing Aposotolic work today. Anyone who was
outside the program could hear them and willingly join themselves. Is
it your contention that The Apostle you are seeking bring a message
distinct from the Apostolic message of the scripture ?

> If the 120 disciples that walked with Jesus, including His
>brethren, and His mother, and His sisters, if they needed to be under
>Apostles, just like they also needed the Holy Ghost, why don't we need to be
>under God-ordained Apostles today? 

Are you saying that we don't have any ?

>If we have leaders that are doing the works of an Apostle, shouldn't they
>have the ordination of an Apostle? Does a pastor need an ordination? If an
>Apostle doesn't need one, I guess we don't need to ordained pastors, either,
>do we? But we both see the foolishness in that- for with the ordination
>comes an authority from God right along with it, amen? So why isn't it the
>same with Apostles?

Who are you proposing would "ordain" an Apostle ?

>My point is, which I believe is from God,  we're not there because we're
>merely missing the main ingredient of the ordained members of the ministry.

>Can you prove me right or wrong? Do you think God would not honor it, if we
>came to Him merely wishing for Him to restore His church to it's original
>condition? 

God HAS restored His church.

>Do you think He would be upset if we were to all gather in one
>accord about something, especially if it were for the sake of the unity of
>His body, and for His glory, and for the power in unity to absolutely turn
>to flight the enemy? Would we be out of His perfect will in doing so? 

Can you tell me what hinders you ?

>Should God's house go without organization founded on the scriptural model?

No, and neither does it.

>Have you all been praying about this? What are you getting from God,
>anything? Stay away from that guy, he's a kook? Nothing? What? 

Its interesting, Bro Tom!

If God tells me to tell you what he tells me, I'll let you know :)

-mwb